Does the Center Need an Extreme?

By James
Crossley
Department of Biblical StudiesUniversity
of Sheffield, UK
June 2010

Much
has already been made of Ronald Hendel’s recent article in
Biblical
Archaeological Review
concerning the apparent “battle royal between faith and reason”
and with particular reference to SBL. SBL has even responded
to Hendel and invited further reflection by its members.

Hendel
is part of a growing criticism in biblical studies concerned with the
rise of vocal evangelicals and “fundamentalists” at SBL
(including a claim of proselytizing) and calls for a clearer
commitment to critical biblical scholarship. I do not wish to support
or criticize Hendel’s main points on their own terms, but as an
aside I would add that I have actually had proselytizing attempts on
my life at academic conferences, even if I did find it an
entertaining novelty and was impressed by the doggedness of those
doomed to failure in the task at hand. (People now seem to have given
up, not that I’m encouraging more, I hasten to add). I also
feel infinitely more comfortable in environments where (say)
questions of supernatural intervention in history are simply not an
option worth discussing, to act as a historian might in a history
department, for instance. But answering questions on accepting the
role of faith in the academic world is not want I want to do here
(see the SBL website for possible answers). Instead, I want to raise
the question (with the probably obvious answer) of whether
constructing a stark opponent ends up being important in creating a
specific academic identity and perpetuating certain cultural trends.

One
function of the constructed extremes, as it is in contemporary
politics, is to maintain the credibility of the center. If we accept
the argument (as I do) that academia is deeply embedded in societal
power structures, then such argumentation takes on another dimension:
one function of loving to hate the extreme(s) is to discredit certain
challenges to power. In political terms, as numerous analysts of
power have pointed out, a cultural function of the far right
(particularly in its European manifestations) is not only to make the
power of the liberal consensus look respectable but also to discredit
challenges to liberal stances on class structure, poverty, foreign
policy, etc. To take a relevant but slightly different route, if
there is one non-religious figure presently constructed as an
extremist it is Hector Avalos. Whatever we may think of his arguments
on the “end of biblical studies,” here is at least a
moral core which gets brushed over or deflected in all the uproar and
controversy: in one of his critiques of biblical scholarship and SBL
(on
the SBL Forum, as it happens)
he raised the issues of class and poverty, claiming in part of his
argument that he “saw scholars nearly trample homeless people
while rushing to yet another appointment or session, perhaps one on
the supposed prophetic call to help the poor” (the responses to
Avalos are worth consulting).

In
Hendel’s article, we read: “While the cultured despisers
of reason may rejoice—including some postmodernists, feminists,
and eco-theologians—I find it dispiriting.” I have little
time for a lot of what has happened with the rise of postmodernist,
coupled as it is with a ferocious form of hyper free market
capitalism, and its accompanying irrationalism (and, ironically, I
think the prominent work of that critic of post modernity, N.T.
Wright, is part of the very trend he seeks to critique – the
risen dead of Jerusalem anyone?). However, it is notable that “some”
feminists and eco-theologians have been tied in with this critique. I
am not sure what sorts of feminists and eco-theologians Hendel may
have in mind but the critique remains sufficiently general to taint
two approaches to the criticism of power, including one which is
potentially involved in tackling perhaps the most important issue of
our time, climate change. Of course, I may be pushing Hendel’s
personal argument and beliefs too far but without a notable
qualification there is not only the obvious distancing but also,
rightly or wrongly, a discrediting of views constructed as extreme.

This
sort of reasoning obviously makes a certain kind of scholarship
normative and, if we were to push strands of the logic, perhaps
immune from the political problems famously associated with
“fundamentalism.” In his response in the SBL discussion,
John van Seters (counter) cites H.D. Betz’s 1997 SBL
presidential address and the importance of a space where “critical
inquiry can take place” and is to be “kept free from
external interference by religious institutions, political policies,
ideologiacl [sic] warfare, and commercial exploitation,” adding
that this is, in fact, “the danger in which the SBL now very
much finds itself.” Yet, there is a problem if this line is
pushed too hard, or even taken to its logical conclusion: the ideal
center can apparently avoid these issues given the right
circumstances. However, what might reasonably be called the rational
center in the history of scholarship has long been affected by
political trends, whether we like it or not, and whether scholars
knew it or not. The Nazi Jesus was carried out by learned German
professors, developing cultural trends of superiority before them and
continued in important (non-fascist) scholarship after which it in
turn, as Shaun Kelley has shown, found its way into liberal
(including politically liberal) and mainstream North America
scholarship. Cultural positioning concerning Palestine and Israel are
deeply embedded in the history of mainstream scholarship, as heated
debates over the past fifteen years have shown, while the past forty
years has seen the (re-emergence of stereotyping “the Arab
world” in mainstream scholarship. Further examples could, of
course, be given but the point ought to be clear.

The
debate over whether SBL and biblical scholarship can incorporate
issues of faith will no doubt continue and the numbers on both sides
are sufficiently high that we may not get a “winner” in
the immediate future. But what I would stress is that whatever model
is taken, it is not going to be likely that the political battles we
see in contemporary culture will be so easily avoided. Indeed, if the
idea of a more pure and uncorrupted center were to win through, then
we have good reason to believe that political warfare will be
perpetuated by more subtle means. And where “fundamentalists”
and evangelicals may find the rational liberal center important in
maintaining their credibility, the liberal rational center may too
find that “fundamentalists” and evangelicals are
important in maintaining their cultural value and intellectual
credibility. Maybe we are really dealing with a love that dare not
speak its name...?